Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> 2018-07-16 11:32 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
>> To be fair, the doc string of make-engraver is

[...]

> It _is_ a good doc-string, no doubt, albeit it's not part of any
> manual.

Well, there once was documentation for Scheme_engraver (but you could
not actually consist a Scheme_engraver).  Instead, we now have
documentation for things like Stem_span_engraver and
Merge_rests_engraver .  Which are actually consistable engravers that
use the C++ structure Scheme_engraver.

Making the distinction between engraver creators and engravers and
underlying mechanisms was a rather icky procedure.  As a result, the
internals manual can now contain different scheme engravers, but the
general Scheme_engraver mechanism that had always been out of place no
longer has a dedicated place in the manual.  Not that its DOC string
ever was overly useful.

> And I thought more about sort of a table like the comparison of
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/input/regression/b8/lily-002a5ef5.ly and
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/input/regression/7d/lily-f57bd45c.ly
>
> Of course one could argue, both are not _ly_-syntax, but speaking only
> for me, I think it's very instructive having an example in both
> syntax.

Well, it's a matter of curation, finding a good place where people will
expect to find something like that when looking for it.

-- 
David Kastrup